On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/12/12 21:31, Johan Tibell wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones >> <simo...@microsoft.com> wrote: >>> | I'm happy to call this -funbox-strict-small-fields. However, I'd like >>> | the documentation to talk about pointer-sized things as that, even >>> | though a bit operational sounding, has a clear meaning in my mind. >>> >>> I'm somewhat inclined to *change* the current flag so that >>> >>> -funbox-strict-fields means "unbox small fields" >>> -funbox-all-strict-fields means "unbox ALL strict fields" >> >> >> Lets go with -funbox-small-strict-fields to avoid unnecessary >> breakages. If we end up enabling this flag by default eventually it >> doesn't really matter what the name is as people will never type it >> out explicitly. > > > +1 > > There are lots of users of the existing flag, we don't want to change its > meaning.
Simon PJ, do you want me to rename the flag to -funbox-small-strict-fields or do you want to do it? If you do it, don't forget to update the documentation as well. -- Johan _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list Cvs-ghc@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
